
O^V 













.0' 




^ov^ ;^^^'^ '^^6^ r-'^^'': '^ov^' 






v^ 



%^0 






3V 



-^' 




.<^* - • • • r. *\> 



^* J' % '^^.* y ^^ 



0^ 
















SPEECH 



OF 



./ 

HON. WILLARD P. HALL, OF MISSOURI, 



ON 




THE ADMISSION OE CALIFORNIA. 



DELIVERED 



IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, TUESDAY, MARCH 5, 1850. 



WASHINGTON: 

PRINTED AT THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOB£ OFFIC£. 
1850. 



THE SLAVE QUESTION. 



The House being in Committee of tlie Whole on 
the state of the Union, on tlie President's Mes- 
sae;e transmitting the Constitution of Califor- 
nia. 

Mr. HALL said: 

Mr. Chairman: If I were to con.sult my indi- 
vidual interests, it is probable that I would avoid 
all discussion of the bill now before the commit- 
tee. But I would poorly discharge the duties of 
an American Representative, if personal consider- 
ations should induce me to withhold the full and 
free expression of my opinions with regard to any 
question of great public importance. I have, there- 
fore, obtained the floor for the purpose of present- 
ing my views with reference to the admission of 
California into the Union as a State. Before doing 
this, however, I feel it due to myself to notice a 
single remark made by the gentleman from Illi- 
nois, [Mr. BissELL,] in the speech with whicii he 
favored us the other day. On that occasion, he 
thought proper, much to my regret, to introduce 
Missouri politics into this arena. He went out of 
his way to applaud the course of one of our Sen- 
ators during the last summer, and thereby indi- 
rectly censured myself and a portion of my col- 
leagues. The honorable member from Illinois is 
much mistaken in supposing that our complaint 
against the Senator alluded to, was his charging a 
portion of the South with favoring disunion. Far 
from it. We believed, and we still believe, that 
the Senator's arguments in favor of the constitu- 
tionality of the proposition to restrict slavery to 
its present limits — his declaration that " Congress 
governs the territory as it pleases, and in a man- 
ner incompatible with the Constitution" — his ef- 
forts to gain popularity for the Wilmot proviso, 
by asserting that Jefferson was its author — and 
his atleiTipts to induce our people to sanction it, by 
saying that it was unwise for them to oppose it — 
were calculated, if not intended, to give etjcourage- 
ment to that faction which was so eloquently de- 
nounced by the gentleman from Massachusetts, a 
few days since, and thus to endanger the Union, 
which we were all so anxious to preserve and per- 
petuate. Perhaps my friend from Illinois was not 
aware of these facts. Perhaps, too, he was not 
aware of this other fact, that the much-applauded 
Senator was, only a few months ago, opposed to 
the admission of California as a State. Yet I 
feel authorized to say, that such was the case. A 
short time since, I received a letter from one of 
the most respectable men in Missouri, in which 
he states: 

" I remarked lo Colonel Benton, while in Liberty last 
summer, that X thought the people of California (I do not 



recollect of incliiriing New Mexico, but probably did) would 
lorin a constitution and State covernnient, and apply lor 
admission into the Union as a Slate. He replied, prompt- 
ly, ' 1 ain opposed to it, sir. There is too nnich of a con- 
gicimerated mass there, and it is not the old regular way of 
doing tilings. '" 

This conduct, on the part of that Senator, to- 
gether with his virtual denial of the right of the 
Legislature of each State to instruct its Senators 
in Congress, /o?-ce(/ a large portion of the people 
of Missouri to abandon him. If any change has 
recently taken place in his opinions, upon the 
subjects referred to, I believe that it has been 
produced by the opeiation of selfish consideratons; 
and if aught of evil grows out of the condition of 
things in our State, he will be justly chargeable 
with having, for the purpose of gratifying his ma- 
lignant passions, ruined the very men — the Democ- 
racy of Missouri — who have made him all that he 
is. With this notice of the speech of the gentle- 
man from Illinois, I dismiss that subject, and pro- 
ceed to the examination of the California ques- 
tion. 

Mr. Chairman, it has been frequently asserted 
by gentlemen of this Plouse, during the present 
session of Congress, that the admission of Califor- 
nia into the Union, with her present constitution, 
v/ould be equivalent to the passage of the Wilmot 
proviso. As I intend to vote for the admission of * 
California, I feel called upon to notice the charge 
which has thus been made. On what ground does 
that charge rest? Why, sir, we are told that the 
constitution of California prohibits slavery within 
her limits; that the Wilmot proviso proposes the 
same thing; and that, therefore, any act of Congress 
recognizing the one, is just as objectionable as the 
adoption of the other. " From this, to me, novel 
doctrine, l,as a southern man, and the Represent- 
ative of a slaveholding constituency, must beg 
leave to dissent. 

The passage of the Wilmot proviso would be 
an act on the part of Congress of gross injustice, 
as I conceive, to one half of the States of this 
Union, tyrannical in its operation upon those im- 
mediately to be affected by it, and of doubtful 
constitutionality. By aduiilling California into 
the Union as a State we would perpetrate no such 
wrong. We would not violate the Constitution. 
We would only exercise an expressly delegated 
power. We would not oppress the people of Cal- 
ifornia. We would only give effect to their praise- 
worthy ambition, by elevating them to the proud 
station of a member of this great and growing 
Confederacy. Nor would we, in my opinion, act 
unjustly towards the South. We would only rec- 
ognize the right of the people of California to 



determine for tlieniselves the f|uestion of domestic 
slavery — a rii;lu that isiltiimed by, and ij;uaraiiticd 
to, every State in the Union, by the Constitution 
under wliich we live. 

Mr. Ciiairman,as;rent revolution seems to have 
been elTected in the minds of certain ^'ontlemen, 
upon tiie shivery question, witliin the last few 
months. Until very recently, I had understood 
the southern ground to be, that " the right to pro- 
' hibit slavery in any territory, l)elongs exclusively 
' to the people thereof, and can only be exercised 

• by them in forming their constitution for a State 
' government, or in their sovereign capacity as an 
' mdependent State." Such is the very language 
of a resolution adopted by the Legislature of xMis- 
souri at its last session. Some of the citizens of 
our State assailed the resolution with much bitter- 
ness, as being loo ultra southern. One of our 
Senators went so far as to expres.'s himself thus 
vith regard to it: " Farewell compromise! fare- 
' well conces.'^ion ! farewell Congress ! farewell 
'Missouri! farewell Constitution of the United 

♦ States, and of all the States I" 1 believe, how- 
ever, t!iat the people of Mi.ssouri generally ap- 
proved the rcsuluti'in. I advocated it; and for 
advocating it, 1 was denounced by certain indi- 
viduals as a disunionist and a nullifier. And now, 
when 1 announce my determination to carry that 
resolution into effect, by voting for the admission 
of California, I am told, from another quartc, that 
I favor " the Executive proviso.'" Well, sir, all 
1 have to say upon that subject is this: That, as I 
was not driven from my principles last summer, 
by assaults at home, so i will not be driven from 
my principles now, by assaults here. 

It will not be denied, Mr. Chairman, that the 
people of Missouri can, at any moment, abolish 
slavery within their limits. Now will it l)e seriously 
contended, that the abolition of slavery in Mis- 
souri, by the peo[>le of that State, would be as ob- 
jectionable to the South, as an attemj)! on the part 
of Congress to do the same thing ? And if not, why 
not? For this plain, substantial atid all-suflicient 
reason. Under our Government, it is the prov- 
ince of each Slate to regulate its own domestic 
affairs, and any attemiU, on the part of Congress, 
to interfere with that right, woidd be a violation of 
the compact entered into when this Union was 
formed. It is for a similar reason, that while the 
passage of the Wilmot proviso would be justly 
offensive to the slaveiiolding States, the admission 
of California into the Union can give rise to no 
well-founded complaints in any quarter. But, it is 
said, that we cannot properly admit California, 
because Congress has not authorized the people to 
forma State government, it appears to me, that 
this objection has no solid foundation on which to 
rest. The Consiinuion declares that " new States 
may be admitted by the Congress, mto this 
Union." This is all the power we jiossess over 
the subject; wc can admit States, not cn-ale them. 
Wc cannot form a State constitution. We cannot 
establish a Stale governmeiit. These things can 
only be done by the[ie<)|)le. And any attempt to do 
them by any other power, would be an usurpation, 
wholly without constitutional authority. Have, 
Ihcn, the people of Califi)rnia estalilislied a State 
govetnrnenl' Have tliey adopted a State constitu- 
tion } They have. Their work is now before us — 
their consiitutmn is now on our tables; and the 
question aubniiilcd is, bhull we admit tiiem into the 



Union? The Constitution says, we may admit 
them, for it says wc may admit new Slates. 
But gentlemen say, that we cannot admit them, 
because we have not ^eclared in advance that we 
would admit them upon their application. Now,sir, 
I understand that all our powers are derived from 
the Constitution of the United States, and not from 
an act of Congress. We possess those powers, 
and those alone which the Constitution confers, 
and they can neither be enlarged nor diminished, 
by an ordinary act of legislation. Suppose that 
the last Congress had declared that no more States 
should ever be admitted into the Union, or that 
every State should be admitted upon its applica- 
tion, no matter what might be its population or its 
boundaries; would such a declaration have been 
obligatory upon us? Most assuredly not. And 
why? Because, each Congress has the right to 
pass all such laws, and to exercise all such powers, 
as the Constitution authorizes. Any other doc- 
trine would make every new Congress the mere 
agent — the mere servant of those which preceded it, 
and impair, if not utterly destroy, the usefulness 
of this Government 

But precedents have been .appealed to. We are 
told that the precedents are all against the admis- 
sion of California. Let us examine some of these 
precedents, and see what they are. 

On the 11th day of July, 1795, the Legislature 
of the then Territory of Tennessee, passed " An 
' act providing for the enumeration of the inhabit- 
' ants of the territory of the United States of 
' America, south of the river Ohio," by which it 
was enacted, " that if, upon taking the enumera- 
' lion of the people in the said territory, as by that 
' directed, it shall appear that there are 6U,000 
' inhabitants therein, counting the whole of the 
' free persons, including those bound to service for 
' a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, 
' adding three-fifths of all other persons, the Gov- 
' ernor be authorized and requested, to recommend 
' to the people of the respective counties, to elect 
' five persons from each county, to represent them 
' in convention, to meet at Knoxville, at such time 
♦ as he shall judge proper, for the purpose of form- 
' ing a constitution, or permanent form of govern- 
' ment." The census of the territory of Tennes- 
see having been taken, as directed, and there ap- 
pearing to be G0,000 free inhabitants therein. Gov- 
ernor Blount, in accordance with the request of the 
act which I have recited, issued his proclamation 
on the 23ih day of November, 1795, from which I 
desire to read a brief extract. After certain reci- 
tals, he says: 

" Now I, the said William Blount, Governor, &c., do 
rRcoiuiiicnrl to the people of tlie respective counties, to elect 
five persons for each county, on the 18tli and 19lh days of 
Dioeinher next, to represent them in a convention, to meet 
at Knoxville, on the 11th diiy of January next, for the pur- 
pose of formins a constitution, or pirmanent form of gov- 
ernment. And to the end, that a perfect uniformity in the 
election of the members of the convention may lake place 
in the respective counties, I, the said William Blount, Gov- 
ernor, &c., do further reeommend to the sheriffs, or their 
deputies, respectively, to open, and hold, polls of election 
f'lr nieinbers of convention, on the 18lh and litlh days of 
December, as aforesaid, in the same manner as polls of 
election have heretofore been held, for members of the Gen- 
eral Assembly, and" [now listen] "that all free males, 
twcnty-onc years of a^e, and ujiward, lie considered as entitled 
to vote hy liallot for fioc persons, for members vf convention." 

At the time this proclamation was issued, the 
provisions of the ordinance of 1787, re'ative to the 
right of suffrage, was in force in the Territory of 



Tennessee. That ordinance provided, " that a 
' freehold in fifty acres of land in the district, 
' having been a citizen of one of the States, and 
' being a resident in the district, or the like I'ret- 
' hold, and two years'residence in the district, shall 
' be necessary to qualify a man as an elector of a 
' Representative." Yet, in the face of this provis- 
ion. Governor Blount advised the right of suffrage 
to be exercised by " all free males, twenty-one 
years of age and upward," whether freeholders or 
non-freeholders, citizens or aliens, white or black, 
residents or strangers. The people of Teimessee 
adopted the Governor's recommendation, formed 
a constitution, and applied for admission into the 
Union as a State. And how was their applica- 
tion received .' Was it rejected .'' Were they re- 
manded back to a territorial condition, as has been 
recently asserted ? No, sir! no. They were not 
so remanded, but they were admitted into the 
Union, in conformity with their request. On the 
8th day of April, 1796, President Washington 
transmitted to Congress a copy of the constitution 
of Tennessee, and certain papers accompanying the 1 
same. On the 12lh of the same month, Mr. Dear- j 
born, from a committee of this Hou.se, reported a 
resolution, admitting Tennessee into the Union. ] 
A few days thereafter, the Flouse passed the res- 
olution. On the 5th day of May, 1796, Mr. King, 
of New York, made a report to the Senate of the 
United States, in which the opinion was ex- 
pressed, " that the inhabitants of that part of the 
territory south of the Ohio, ceded by North Car- 
olina," were not at that time, " eiititled to be re- 
ceived as a new State into the Union." The 
Senate accordingly passed a bill, providing for the 
enumeration of the inhabitants of Tennessee, and 
their future admis.?ion into the Union. The House 
amended the Senate bill in its title and in substance, 
so as to make it a bill admiitine Tennessee into 
the Union, with one Representative in Congress, 
until the general census then next ensuing. Tlie 
Senate non-concurred in the House amendments. 
A committee of conference was appointed, who 
reported in fwor of the Plouse amendments. The 
report of the committee was adopted by both 
Houses of Congress, and on the 1st day of June, 
1796, the bill was presented to the President: on 
the same day it received his signature, and thus it 
became the law of the land. Such are liriefly the 
facts connected with the admission of Tennessee 
into the Union, as I gather them from the public 
records of the country, as contained in the Amer- 
ican State Papers, Vol. XX., Miscellaneous, Vol. 
I, pages 146, 147, and 150, and in the Senate and 
House Journals, for the year 1796. This history 
shows, that neither the first and most illustrious 
of our Presidents, nor the Congress of 1796, be- 
lieved an act of Congress necessary to authorize 
the people of a territory to form a State govern- 
ment. It may not be unworthy of remark, also, 
that General Jackson was a member of the con- 
vention wliich prepared the constitution of the 
State of Tennessee; and he, surely, would not 
have participated in the deliberations of that body, 
had he believed its proceedings to be contrary to 
law, and in violation of the Constitution of the 
United State."?. 

Arkansas, Michigan, Florida, and Inwa, were 
also admitted into the Union, without any act of 
Congress being passed, authorizing the people of 
those States to form constitutions — at least, after 



the most diligent search, I have been able to find 
no such law. But the case of Michigan deserves 
especial notice. One of the allegations most con- 
stantly introduced, and most zealously urged 
against the admission of California is, that her 
people were not an organized political community, 
by act of Congress, at the time they formed and 
adopted their constitution. Precisely the same 
difficulty existed in the case of Michigan. At the 
time the people of that State formed their constitu- 
tion, and for some years previous, the Territory 
of Michigan embraced all the territory that is now 
included within tlieStates of Michigan, Wisconsin, 
iowa, and the Territory of Minnesota. Hence, the 
people who resided within the boundaries of the 
present State of Michigan, were not, at the time 
referred to, an organized political community, by 
virtue of any law of the United States. They 
were only a part of such a community. Under 
these circumstances, the Territorial Legislature of 
Michigan, not only without the consent of Con- 
gress, given for that purpose, but after such con- 
sent had been twice refused, passed an act, which 
was approved by the Governor of Michigan, Jan- 
uary 26, 18.35, authorizing a portion of the people 
of that territory to form a constitution and Stale 
government. At the time of the passage of this 
act, the right of suflTrage within the Territory of 
Michigan, as fixed by Congress, was confined to 
free white male citizens of the United States, who 
had resided within the territory one year, and had 
paid a county, or territorial tax. Yet ihe Terri- 
torial Legislature, disregarding the laws of Con- 
gress, enacted, in the second section of the statute 
which I have recited, "that the free white male 
' inhabitants of the .said territory, above the age of 
' twenty-one years, who shall reside therein three 
' months immediately preceding Saturday, the 
' fourth day of April next, in the year one thou- 
' sand eight hundred and thirty-five, be, and they 
' are hereby authorized to choose delegates, to form 
' a constitution, &c.'' The people of a portion of 
the Territory of Michigan— the people, I reiterate, 
who v.'pre not a political community, under any 
act of Congress, then in force — approving the pro- 
visions of the territorial law, adopted a constitu- 
tion, applied for admission into the Union, as a 
State, and were conditionally admitted on the 15th 
of June, 1836. They having, by a convention of 
delegates, elected for that purpose, given their 
assent to the conditions of the act of June 15th, 
1836, were unconditionally admitted on the 26th 
of January, 1837, during the Administration of 
President Jackson. From this review of facts, it 
appears to me, that every objection urged against 
the admission of California', on the ground that 
her people were not an organized political commu- 
nity, and that the right of suffrage was not estab- 
lished by an act of Congress, applied with full 
force in the case of Michigan. Yet these objec- 
tions were then overruled as captious and unsub- 
stantial, and I trust that they will be so regarded 
now. 

Mr. Chairman, in considering the question be- 
fore us, we should bear in mind the recent history 
of California. We should remember, that the 
American citizens, resident there, had revolution- 
ized all the country around the Bay of San Fran- 
cisco, and north thereof, before we attempted to 
take possession of it. As soon, however, as our 
flag was run up in California, the people who 



6 



lived in that country, cheerfully recognized our 
authority, because tlicy loved our Union, and the 
institutions under which they had been reared. 
About the time that the peoiile of Calirornia com- 
menced their revolution, war broke out between 
the United Slates and Mexico. Our operations 
were so active, durinic that war, that Mexico was 
unable to send any troops to Californiu, while 
hostilities continued with us. Indeed, she made 
no elTiirt to do so. A lew months after Commo- 
dore Sloat had iioisted our flae: at Monterey, the 
Mexican population of California attempted to re- 
take the country. As soon as this revolt was known, 
five hundred of our emiijrants hastened to supress 
it. They marched several hundred miles in Califor- 
nia, drivin;; all opposition before them; and, but 
for some unfortunate delays, they would have re- 
duced the enemy, before Kearney and Stockton 
had been able to strike a Ijlow. Tiie bare state- 
ment of these facts — facts within the knowledge, 
doubtless, of every gentleman here present — must 
satisfy all that, but for our interference, California 
would, at this time, have been an independent 
State. It is true, that if we had not acquired Cal- 
ifornia, Mexico might have atteni|Ued to recon- 
quer it; but, when we reflect upon the zeal v/ith 
■which our citizens would have rushed to the relief 
of their brethren in California, and upon the mul- 
titudes which the recent discoveries in that coun- 
try have drawn to it, we can scarcely believe that 
the etiorts of Mexico would have been successful 
for a sini^le moment. I therefore reassert that, 
but for our interference, California would, at this 
time, have been an independent State, owning, in 
fee, all the public domain within her limits, indu- 
ing her exhaustless mines of gold. But for the 
purpose of promoting our own interests, we chose 
to interfere. We therefore occupied a country, 
which our citizens Imd, without our aid, already 
conquered. As soon as our Government took j 
possession of California, military contributions 
were levied upon her people, and military rule ' 
was estaljlished over them. While war lasted, 
these evils were borne, as temporary in their char- 
acter, and as necessary incidents to a state of hos- 
tilities. It was hoped, that when peace v/as es- 
tablished, military rule and exaction would both 
cease. This hope was disappointed. Military 
rule and military exactions still continued the por- 
tion of California; and yet, her peojile still ac- 
quiesced; and still they hoped for relief. The 
action of the last Congress, however, but loo 
clearly announced to them that they must expect 
no aid from us, under the prestnt state of excite- 
ment, relative lo the question of slavery. We not 
only failed to give them a territorial organization, 
but we extended our revenue laws over them in 
this way, subjecting them to the burdens, while 
we denied them the benefits of government. Thus 
situated, the people of California thought it to be 
their duty to take rare of themselves — to protect 
their lives, and to secure their properly. They 
accordingly met in convention, established a gov- 
ernnient, and feeling themselves able to support a 
State organization, they have applied for admis- 
aion into the Union. And fortius they have been 
denounced. These denunciations sound strangely 
in my ears. 

Have gentlemen forgotten the course of events 
in Oregon .' In 1)545, the people of that territory 
established a government and adopted a constitu- 



tion. For some years they lived under the laws 
enacted by themselves. We heard no charges 
of usurpation airainst the people of Oregon for 
their conduct. Every one seemed to acquiesce in 
the propriety of their action. The late President 
of the United Stales, in one of his official commu- 
cations to Congress, alluded lo the course of the 
people of Oregon, in the strongest terms of com- 
mendation; and Congress, in the 17th section of 
the act organizing the Oregon Territory, endorsed 
the action of the people thereof, in the fullest and 
most emphatic manner, by declaring, " that all 
' suits, processes, and proceedings, civil and crim- 
' inal, at law and in chancery, and all indictments 
' and informations, which shall be pending and 
'undetermined in the courts established by author- 
' ity of the provisional government of Oregon, 
' within the limits of the said territory, when this 
' act shall take effect, shall be transferred to be 
' heard, tried, prosecuted, and determined, in the 
' district courts hereby established, which may 
' include the counties or districts, where any such 
' proceeding may be pending. All bonds, recog- 
' nizances and obligations of every kind whatso- 
' ever, valid under the existing laws within the lim- 
' its of said territory, shall be valid under this act; 
' and all crimes and misdemeanors againsi the laws 
' in force within said limits, may be prosecuted, 
' tried and punished in the courts established by 
' this act, in V\ke manner as they would have been 
' umler the laws in force v.'ithin the limils compos- 
' ing said territory, at the time this act shall go 
' into operation." It may not be improper to re- 
mark, that this section, which so fully sanctions 
the action of tlie people of Oregon in establishing 
a government, v.'ithout the previous assent of Con- 
gress, was not objected to by a single gentleman 
in this or the other end of the Capitol. And yet 
we are told that the people of Calitornia for doing 
that which was so highly applauded in the people 
of Oregon, have been guilty ofa most unpardonable 
usurpation 1 It is true that the people of Oregon 
did not apply for admission into the Union as a 
State. The reason is obvious. Their population 
was so small, and their means were so scanty, 
that they were not able lo sustain a govern- 
ment. Hence they asked us for assistance, and 
petitioned us for a territorial organization. The 
situation of California is far different. The peo- 
ple of that country are numerous and wealthy; 
they are al)le lo sustain a State government; they 
therefore ask us for no pecuniary aid; they de- 
mand no appropriation out of our treasury to 
enable thein to administer their local government. 
All they request is that they may be permit- 
ted to govern themselves at their own expense. 
Now, surely, sir, if the people of Oregon were jus- 
tifiable in establishing a government and adopting 
a constitution, wiihout the authority of Congress, 
the people of Califi)rnia must be justified for doing 
the same thin^, unless it can be made appear, that 
the superior tiumbers and wealth of the latter, 
deprive them of ihe rights and privileges that were 
for years exercisf d bv the former. 

S:ill, it is said, that we should remand California 
to a territorial condition, condemn the entire 
course of her people in forming a government, 
and sternly reject tlu-ir application for admission 
into tlie Union as a State. It may be well for us 
to consider the wisdom and policy of such a pro- 
ceeding on our part. Time will not permit me to 



examine this subject at length. I must content 
myself by calling the attention of the committee 
to remarks of certain greatly-distinguished gentle- 
men of the South, upon a very similar question, 
which was mooted here some years since. Mr. 
Pinckney, of South Carolina, in his able speech 
on the Missouri question, used this language: 

" If you refuse to admit Missouri vvitliout llie proliibition, 
and slie refuses it, and proceeds to form a constitution fjr 
herself, and tlis n applies for admission, what will you do ? 
Will you compel them by force.' By wlioni or by what 
force can this be effected? Will the States in the neighbor- 
hood join in the crusade ? Will they, who to a man think 
Missouri is right and you are wron?, arm in such a cause ? 
Can you send a force from the eastward of the Delaware ? 
The very distance forbids it, and distance is a powerful aux- 
iliary to a country attacked. If, in the days of James the 
Second, English soldiers, under military discipline, when 
ordered to nfarch against their countrymen, contending in 
the cause of liberty, disobeyed the order and laid down their 
arms, do you think our free brethren on the Mississippi will 
not do the same thing .' Yes, sir ! they will refuse, and you 
will at last be obliged to retreat from this measure, and in a 
manner that will not add much to the dignity of your Gov- 
ernment." — National Intelligencer, June 2G, 1820. 

The languase of Mr. Pinckney, a little changed, 
applies with full force to the case before us. 1 
leave it to gentlemen to make the change for 
themselves, and beg them to ponder and reflect 
upon the views of that eminent southern states- 
man and patriot. 

Mr. Nathaniel Macon, of North Carolina, than 
whom this country has produced no better man, 
and the soundness of whose judgment, and the 
genuineness of whose republicanism, are now 
proverbial, thus expressed himself with reference 
to " the Missouri controversy:" 

"All governments, no mauer what theirform, want more 
power and more authority, and all the governed want less 
government. Great Britain lost the United States by at- 
tcmptingto «ovcrn f,oomuch,and tointroduce new principles 
of governing. The United States would not submit to the 
attempt, and earnestly endeavored to persuade Great Britain 
to abandon it, but in vain. The United States would not 
yield ; and the result is known to the world. The baule is 
not to the strong, nor the race to the swift. What reason 
have we to expect that we can persuade Missouii to yield 
to our opinion that did not apply as strongly to Great Britain .' 
They are, as near akin to us, as we were to Great Britain. 
They are ' flesh of our flesh and hone of our bone,' 
t * * every free nation has had some principle in their 
government, to which more importance was attached than 
any other. The English were not to be taxed without their 
consent given in Parliament: the American is to form their 
own Slate government, so that it be not inconsistent with 
that of the United States. * * * It would have been 
very gratifying to me to have been informed by some of the 
gentlemen who support the amendment, what is intended to 
bedone, if itbe adopted, and the people of Missouri will not 
vield, hutao on and form a State government, (having the 
requisite number agreeably to the ordinance,) as Tennessee 
did, and then applv for admission into the Union. Will 
she be admitted as Tennessee was, on an equal looting with 
the original Stntes, or will the appliciUion be rejected, as 
the Brilish Government did the petitions of the old Congress ! 
If you do not admit her, and she will not return to the 
territori;il government, will you declare her people rebels, 
as Great Britain did u^, and order them to be conquered for 
contending for the same ri-ihti that every State in the Union 
now enjoys'! Will y(m for this, order the father to ujarch 
aoaiii't the son, and brother against brother? God forbid I 
*" * * If vou should declare them rebels, and conquer 
them, would that attach them to the Union ? No one can 
expect this. ' * If the United States are to make con- 
quests, do not let the first bc#in at home. Nothing is to be 
got by American conquerini American. Nor ought we to 
forget that we aro not legislating for ourselv>^s, and that the 
American rliaracter is not yielding when rights are con- 
cerned."— iVa^wnai Intelligencer, February 12, 1820. 

The extract I have just read, is full of wisdom. 
It appeals to the North not to trespass upon the 
rights of the South— it appeals to the South not 
to" trespass upon the rights of California— it ap- 



peals to the majority not to trespass upon the rights 
of the minority, but to practice liberality and jus- 
tice, and thus to gather the afl'ections of all around 
the Union — giving strength to our Government, 
and perpetuity to our institutions. 

But 1 go further. I not only say that the peo- 
ple of California have acted properly, and that we 
may properly admit them into the Union, but that 
It is our duty so to admit them. Nothing, it seems 
to me, would be more repugnant to the spirit of 
the Constitution, than an attempt to retain the 
people of the territories forever in a state of terri- 
torial vassalage. Suppose that the original thirteen 
States had steadily refused to admit any other 
States into the Union, and had thus sought to keep 
the people who inhabit the mighty Valley of the 
Mississippi, in a territorial condition forever: would 
such a course have been in accordance with the 
genius of our Government .? Would it have been 
jimerican to exclude the millions who livein the 
new States, from all participation in the affairs of 
this Governrnent, while they are subjected to a full 
share of its burdens ? Would it have been exactly 
republican to retain Ohio, and Indiana, and Illi- 
nois, and Kentucky, and Tennessee, and the other 
great States of the West, down to the present 
time, as mere colonies of the original parties to 
the Constitution? No one will venture to answer 
these inquiries affirmatively. If, then, the charac- 
ter of our institutions requires that an end should 
be put to the territorial condition of our people, 
when is the period at which the state of depend- 
ence .should cease ? It is the very moment when 
the citizens of the United States, living wiihm 
convenient boundaries in any of our territories, 
are numerous enough to form a State, and are de- 
sirous of assuming Uiat condition. 

This subject was well and ably discussed on the 
proposition to authorize the people of Missouri to 
form a State sovernment, some thirty years ago. 
The opponents of the " Missouri restriction at 
that day, boldly proclaimed the very doctrines that 
I have here laid down. Mr. Holmes, then a mem- 
ber of this House for the State of Massachusetts, 

said : 

" New States may he admitted, and no difference is au- 
thorized. The authority is to admit or not, hut not to pre- 
scribe conditions. What would be a fair construction of 
this ' Surely not that Congress might hold a territory in a 
colonial condition as long as they choose, nor that they 
might admit a new State with less political rights than an- 
other but that the admmion should be as sooji as the people 
needed, and were capable of supporting a State government. 
—National Intelligencer, Feb. 19, 1820. 

Mr. J. Barbour, at that time a Senator in Con- 
gress from the State of Virginia, said: 

« What tlien, is vour power ? Simply whether you will- 
admit or refuse, this is the limit of your power. And 
even this power is subject to contiol. whenever a territory is-. 
sufficiently large, and its population snfficiently numerous : your 
discretion ceases, and the oUigation becomes imperious that 
you forthv.'ith admit; for I hold that, according to Ihe sp pi 
of the Constitution, the people thus circumstanced are entitled 
to the privilege nf self-government."— National Intelligenccry, 
March iS, 1820. 

Mr Philip P. Barbour, late one of the judges 
of the'Supreme Court of the United States, and in 
1820 a member of the House of Representatives 
from Virginia, said; 

'<Tlie first which I shall examine, beeause it ha? been 
mon relied on. is in these words : ' New States may be ad- 
mitted into this Union.' Now, say gentlemen, this pro- 
vision is permi-sive, not imperative— that as Coijsress may, 
so thev may no, admit ; and as they may not admit, there- 
lore they may in their discretion impose their own terms.. 



8 



t)n my [):irt it is coiiti-n<lcil, that the power of Congress is 
liuiitcil til the .-iiiiplc ulieniativeoi' ailiiiltliiig, or not admit- 
ting — that even this power is snhject to the modification, lliat 
Ihctj have not the moral ri'^ht to refuse wlinissionto a territory 
u-tioie siliiiition ami circumstances suit it for admisaion." — Na- 
tional Intelligencer, ^iirril 13, 16:20. 

Mr. Hardin-, of Kentucky, said: 

" L'nder the ln'ad of preh'minary facts, and positions, let 
us inquire, Mr. Uh:»irman, what are the claims of the people 
and Territory of .Missouri, to be ailinitted into the Union as 
a nieiiiher of this L'rrat poliiical faniily. Her territory is not 
unusually large. The dimensions of the jiroposcd State are 
not greater — do not contain more sipiare miles — than the 
States of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. Her population is 
ailinitted by all to be upward of 60,000. No State, whidi 
has been admitt;d into this Union since the adoption of 
the Constitution, had. at the time of its admission, a greater 
population ; several of them had scarcely half the number. 
The Constitution, when it says, 'new States maybe admit- 
ted by the Congress, into the Union,' is silent upon tlie sub- 
ject of numbers or boundary; Inil leaves that subject to 
the sound discretion of Congress. The manner in which 
that discretion has been exercised, has been so uniform and in- 
variable, that it amounts to a law. It is, Mr. Chairman, a 

PROCL.V.M.ITIO.N TO THE INH.VBITANTS OF ALL THE TERRI- 
TORIES, THAT WHENEVER THEIR NUMBERS API'ROACH TO 
FIFTY OR SI.XTY THOUSAND, THEY SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO 
BURST FROM AROU.NDTHEM THE BONDS AND CHAINS OF TER- 
RITORIAL SERVITUDE, AND VASSALAGE, AND ASSUME AND 
EXERCISE THE RIGHTS OF SELF-GOVERN.MENT — THE INALIEN- 
ABLE RIGHTS OK MANKIND." 

" But, Mr. Chairman, independent of the practice of this 
Government, in admitting other States into the Union, I 
say, upon principle, if Missouri were the first candidate that 
ever offered and asked for admission, we would he bound 
to do one of two things— either to receive her as a sister 
State, or permit her to set up an independent governmeni 
for herself. Who, in this House, is prepared to deny and 
disclaim tiie principles upon which the American Revolu- 
tion commenced, and, in contending for which, we estab- 
Ii-,hed our independence.' * ' * The principle we contended 
for was this, th a wi', from our intelligpnce and population, 
were competent for all the purposes of self-government; and 
that it was the inalienable birthright of all men, to be houmi 
by no laws, unless they participated in their enactment; and 
that any law made by the King and Parliament of Great 
Britain, in which we had no voice— no representation— was 
not only not obligatory upon us, but absolutely, as it re- 
spected m, null and void. On the other side of the ocean 
it w^as contended, that the laws enacted by the Inipeiial 
Parliament and their Majesty, were binding upon us in all 
cases whatsoever. The above was the point at issue be- 
tween the parties. Our right to a sent upon this floor, our 
being assembled here this day, proclaims the glorious result 
ot the contest. Knt, then, in tho;^e good times, Mr. Chair- 
man, it was the feeling and interest of the American peo- 
ple to contend, and spill t:ie best blood of the land, for first 
principles. Now, I ain sorry to sav, that one portion ol 
these United St.ales find it iheir interest, to combat those 
very principles lor which a number oflhiir fathers gloriously 
perished."— A'u«oii«i Intelligencer, March 9, ISQij; 

The language of the Virginia Legislature was 
even more explicit than any that I have yet quo- 
ted. In a report, adopted by that body on tiie first 
day of February, ]820, are found the foMowing 
bold and emphatic declarations, to which I ask 
the especial attention of the committee: 

" In the first place," (says the report,) " it is denied that 
Congress has the right to continue the de(>endence of the 
territory, at pleasure— to perpetuate its minority and their 
regency. And this is denied without anvrelerence to com- 
pact or treaty. It is true, the Con.tiluiioii gives a power 
to ili>pose ol, and make all neeilliil rules and recnlalions 

for the pover eiit of its territories ; but powers may bj 

restrained, in the same manner that lliev may be enlarged 
hy "nphcation ; and if there he an irresistible implication, 
limiuiie any grant of power, it is believed that lliia grant is 
wi limited. It can never be believed, thai an association of 
free and independent Slates, formed for the purposes of 
Rcneral defence, of e'itahtishinz justice, and of securivg the 
tlesHnss oflihcrtijlo thcmseUcs and thrir jxisleritii, ever coii- 
teiijplated the ac(|uisilion of lerrilorv lor ihe purpose of ps- 
tiil.lirhinB. ami perpetuating for oihers and Iheir posterity 
that e-doni.il hondage agaiiisl which they themselves ha.l so 
lalely rev., hid. 'I'l,,^ provision, tbr the admir-sion of new 
HUleB into the Union, is a cloar inditaliou of Uic destiny J 



intc^nded for tlio acquired territories. It being foreseen, 
however, that circumstances might occur to control this 
destination, or that experience might prove it unsafe or un- 
wise, a discretion was given to refuse or admit the new 
States— there being embraced in the power to dis|inse of the 
territories, Ihe means of entitling lliem to imlepeiKlence. 
The territories of the United States are riL'litlnlly held in 
pupilage, as long as their infancy unfits them for self-gov- 
ernment, or adinissiiin into the Union, but unjustly detained 
in bondage, whenever their maturity arrives. M that period 
thc;ihava a rii^ht to demand udniillancr into the political family 
as cquah, or the enjoyment of liberty as iiidcjiendent States. 
Power may enslave them longer, but ike hiim of nature ami of 
justice— the genius of our political imlitutiom, and our ovm 
example— proclaim their title to break their bonds and assert 
their freedom. — Laws of Virginia, 1819-20. 

What the Legislature of Virginia meant by the 
people of a territory arriving at maturity, is not a 
matter of conjecture. The report from which I 
have just read, was upon, and in favor of, the prop- 
osition to authorize the people of Missouri to form 
a State constitution. The Legislature, therefore, 
considered the territory of Missouri as having ar- 
rived at maturity. But Missouri at that time con- 
tained only about sixty thousand inhabitants; 
and, as the present population of California much 
exceeds the population of Missouri in 1820, the 
people of California are, according to the old Vir- 
ginia doctrine, entitled to admission into the Union, 
or to absolute independence. " Power," to re- 
peat the language of the report, "may enslave 
'them longer, but the laws of nature and of jus- 
' tice, the genius of our political institutions, and 
'our own example, proclaim their title to break 
'their bonds and a.ssert their freedom." But it 
may be said that I over-estimate the number of 
people in California. In order to decide this ques- 
tion, let us appeal to facts. The report of one of 
the United States officers at San Francisco, states 
that the number of immigrants who arrived at that 
port by sea, between the first of April and the 
first of December last, was upward of twenty- 
nine thousand.* We know, from evidence that is 
as good as official, that about seven thousand emi- 
grant wagons left the western part of Missouri, 
last Spring, for California, by the way of the South 
Pass. Many emigrants went the same route at 
that time, with pack-mules. If, however, we 
throw out of consideration the latter altogether, 
and allow four persons to each wagon, we have 
twenty-eight thousand as the number of those who 
emigrated to California last season by the northern 



* Since this si)eecli was delivered the following statement 
has been received : 

The number of vessels arrived at the port of San Fran- 
cisco, from the 12th April to the end of January last, is 
shown in the following statement from the records of the 
harbor master's oliicc : 

Amount of to7inage arrived since Jipril 12, 1849, until date, 
January W,lSoO. 

American 223,499 

Foreign 55,809 

Total 264,238 

Number ofpasscniicrs arrived during llic same period. 

Female. Male. 

American 919 29,840 

Foreign 502 8,627 

Total 1,421 38,467 

Number of ship^ that have arrived during that period. 

American 487 

Foreign 318 

Total 805 

The above is e.xelusive of United States ships and trans- 
ports, and the mail steamers. 



overland route. A large number of emigrants also 
went to California by the way of Santa Fo, Fort 
Smith in Arkansas!, Texas, and Mexico. The 
number who went by all the routes last mentioned, 
has never been estimated at less than ten thousand. 
These data give sixty-seven thousand as the num- 
ber of emigrants to California during eight months 
of last year, of whom three-fourths at least were 
American citizens. But many persons were in 
California before the first of April last, and many 
liave gone there since the first of December last. 
Taking all these facts into consideration, I think 
it will be difficult for any one to believe, that there 
are not one hundred thousand people at this mo- 
ment in the new State of California. But there is 
another mode of estimating the population of Cali- 
fornia. Her recent popular vote stood as follows: 

For the Constitution 1-2,0S1 

Against the Constitution. ... 811 

Total 12,872 

For Governor. Votes. 

PetPf H. Burnett 6,783 

S. A. Suiter 2,201 

Win. M. Stew:irt 619 

W. Scott Sherwood 3,220 

John W. Geary 1 ,358 

Scattering 32 

Total n,213 

Now, it may be said with safety, that this vote 
is larger than that given by any of the new States 
at the time of its admission into the Union, except 
the Stale of Wisconsin. Louisiana was admitted 
into the Union on the 8th day of April, 1812. The 
first popular vote given in that State, of which I 
have been able to find full returns, was at the elec- 
tion for Governor, in 1820, which resulted as fol- 
lows: 

Votes. 

Thomas Boiling Robertson, received 1,903 

Peter Derligny " 1,187 

Abnrr h. Duncan " 1,031 

J. N. Destrelian " 627 

Total 4,748 

Niles's Register, December 2G, 1820, Vol. 19, page 280. 

Indiana was admitted into the Union on the 11th 
day of Deceml)er, 1816. According to Niles's 
Register, Vol. 13, page 111, the whole number of 
votes given at the Congressional election in that 
State, in 1816, was six thousand seven hundred 
and eighty-nine. 

Mississippi was admitted into the Union on the 
10th day of December, 1817, and Illinois on the 
3d of December, 1818. 

The earliest vote given in either of those States, 
of which I have found any authentic account, was 
cast in 1822, and is thus reported in Niles' Regis- 
ter: 

"7Hino!s.— Edward Coles i-^ reelected Governor of, an" 
Daniel P. Cook reelected the Representative from lliis State- 
Mr. Cook had 4,764 votes, and his opponent, John MiLean, 
3,311."— [A''i'es's Register, vol. ^3, page 43 ] 

« Mississippi.— The. vote lately taken for a Representative 
in Congress, Ptnod thus: For Mr. Rankin, 4,811 ; for Mr. 
Poindexter, •3,6-04." — [Niles's Register, vol. 23, page 9G1.] 

It is true, that the ratio for apportioning mem- 
bers of this House, was only 35,000 at the time 
the States I have mentioned were admitted into 
the Union, and that it is now 70,680. Yet, if we 
make a proper allowance for the increase of the 
vote in the Stales of Illinois and Mississippi, from 
the date of their admission, until the year 1822, 



we will still find that the vote of California is aa 
large, compared with the present rjitio, as the vote 
of either Louisiana, Indiana, Mississippi, or Il- 
linois was, at the period of their admission, com- 
pared with the ratio which then existed. 

Let us now come to a later period: Arkansas 
and Michigan were admitted into the Union in 
1836. At the Presidential election, in the autumn 
of that year, the popular vote in those States was 
as follows: 

ARKA.NSAS. 

Van Buren. Ml others. Total. 

2,400 1 ,238 3,638 

Michigan. 
Van Buren. Jill others. Total. 

7,360 4,000 11,360 

Since 1836, the ratio for a Representative in 
Congress has been increased about fifty per cent, 
while the vote of California is nearly four times 
as large as that of Arkansas was at the time of 
her admission, and is considerably larger than 
that of Michigan, although in the latter State for- 
eigners were entitled to the right of suffrage. 

But let us come to a still later peiiod: Florida 
was admitted into the Union on the 3d day of 
March, 1845. The vote at one of her first Con- 
gressional elections stood thus: For Brokenbrough, 
2,GG9; for Cabell, 2,632. Total, 5,301. 

Iowa came into '.he Union in 1846. The vote 
at her first State election was: 

For Gorerrior. Votes. 

Ansel BriUL'es 6,689 

Thomas McKnight 6,582 

Total 13,271 

{Niles's Register, vol. 71, page 296.) 

At this election, it should be remembered, that 
Iowa elected two members of this House, Leffler 
and Hastings, both of whom were adinitted to 
their seats. The ratio for apportioning Represen- 
tatives in Congress, has not been changed since 
1845, and yet, though California has polled more 
than twice as many votes as Florida did at her 
first State election, and a larger vote than Iowa 
did at her first State election, when she chose 
two members of this body, we are told that Cali- 
fornia has not a sufficient population for a State. 

Mr. THOMPSON, of Mississippi. Will the 
gentleman inform us how many foreign votes were 
polled in California ? 

Mr. HALL. With pleasure. The constitu- 
tion of California confines the right of suffrage to 
" white male citizens of the United States, and 
white male citizens of Mexico, who have elected 
to become citizens of the United States, under the 
treaty of peace exchanged and ratified at duere- 
taro, on the thirteenth day of May, 1848, of the 
age of twenty-one years," &c. None but such 
persons were entitled to vote at the late election in 
California. What is the precise number of the 
latter class I do not know; bull can approximate 
pretty near to it. In the first place, IVlcCulloch 
tells us in his Geographical Dictionary, that the 
white population of California, Mexican and for- 
ei"-n, in the year 1832, did not exceed five thousand. 
If^we suppose that the Mexican population in 
California doubled themselves in the last eighteen 
years, and that the whole of them elected to 
become citizens under the treaty, we would have 
not more than sixteen hundred Mexican voters 
in that State. In the next place, in the year 
1847, there was a revolt of the Mexican popu- 



10 



lation in Ciilifornia, against our authority, in 
whicl) revolt, almost every arm-bearing Califor- 
uian was engaged. Tlie Californians estimated 
their forceat about five hundred men — we estimated 
it at about seven hundred. If we suppose that 
only one halt' of the adult male Californians par- 
ticipated in the insurrection, this would give four- 
teen hundred, as the greatest possible number of 
that class of voters now in the State of California. 
Finally, the representatives from California es- 
timate the whole number of Mexican voters in that 
State, at about thirteen hundred. Now, if we sup- 
pose that all of these persons, whether thirteen 
iiundred, fourteen luindred, or sixteen hundred, 
voted at the election in California, still we have a 
greater American voting-population in that State, 
than was polled by any new State at the time of 
its admission, except Iowa and Wisconsin, each 
of which chose two Representatives in Congress 
at its first State election. 

" But no census has been taken of the popula- 
tion of California." That is true. And I am not 
aware that an enumeration of tlie inhabitants of a 
State is necessary prior to her admission — at 
least I have not been able to find any clause in 
the Constitution, which points to such an enumer- 
ation as a prerequisite to the admission of a State. 
No census was taken of the population of Texas, 
I believe, when she came into the Union, and no 
census was taken of the population of Illinois at 
the time of her admission. Mr. Rufus King, of 
New York, did, indeed, object in the United States 
Senate to the admi.ssion of Missouri, on the ground 
that no proper enumeration of her inhabitants had 
been made. Mr. Smith, of South Carolina, re- 
plied to that objection, and here is a portion of 
what he said on that occasion: 

'• \Vlien Illinois wa? admitted, it was on tiie doulitfiil 
evidence of forty thousand of a population. He would read 
t!ie mei.orial upon which that State wa? adnitted, as far 
as re^;pecled ihe ainomit of population. It was as follows : 
'Within the boundaiie.s of this territory, there are, in the 
'opinion of your ineiuorialists, not less than forty thoUfand 
'souls.' 

"This is all Ihe evidence you had before you when you 
admitted Illinois. Did the western and southern niemliers 
require a survey of this territory, or a census of the popula- 
tion, before they consented to the admission of thai State .' 
Did the honorable geiitlenian from New York ever think of 
such a thins, when he voted for the admission of Illinoi.*.' 
Xo, sir ! not one member of the Senate ever dreamed of ask- 
in? for a census, or survey. Such a thing was unprece- 
dented, until Mi-souri came before you." — National Inlel- 
li'encer, March 23, 1820. 

It is, however, objected, that the people of Cal- 
ifornia are incapabJe of self-government. Who 
are the persons thus denounced — for the charge is 
a denunciation? Who are tliey? Why, sir, they 
are our own brothers and relations — our old neigh- 
bors and acquaintances. They have been reared 
up under our Government, and have been taught 
from childhood the principles of our instiluiions. 
Many of them are distinguished for tlicir wisdom 
and learning — for their virtue and patriotism. 
Every gentleman under the sound of my voice 
can testify, that much of ihe very best part of our 
population has gone to California. Amonu; the 
emigrants to that State, are ex-members of Con- 
gress, ex-governors of Slates, and ex-judges of 
our courts, as well as many of the most inltlli- 
pcnt of the masses. And are tiiey not capable of 
self government? For one, I am willing to intrust 
them with that privilege. I wish to make them 



free — free, sir, as your State and my State are 
f,-ee — free to enact their own local laws, to estab- 
lish their own institutions, and to regulate their 
internal affairs, according to the dictates of their 
own judgment. 

It IS true that there are foreigners in California; 
but they are not perinitted to interfere with the 
government — the right of sufiVage being confined, 
as I have already said, to our own citizens, and 
those Mexicans who, according to treaty stipula- 
tions, are entitled to the privileges of citizens. 
The number of the latter, as has been shown, does 
not exceed a few hundred — so that California is as 
much under the control of our own people as Mis- 
souri, or any other State in the Union. 

It is an easy matter to say that any people are 
unfit for self-government; but if we look to facts, 
we shall find nothing to warrant such a conclusion 
with regard to the population of California. For 
the last two years and more, they have been 
almost without a government; yet they have 
maintained a degree of order which, under all the 
circumstances, is truly astonishing. I think it 
might be said, without fear of contradiction, that 
there is no State in the Union which, under the 
same circumstances, would present a more gratify- 
ing spectacle of decorum than this very California, 
whose citizens have been so fiercely denounced in 
this discussion. Have gentlemen read the Cali- 
fornia constitution? It is a work of which any 
body of men might be justly proud. Its thorough 
republicanism, and the guaranties it contains of the 
rights of the people, will compare well — nay, sir, 
they will brigntly contrast — with the constitutions 
of some of our States that stand high for intelli- 
gence. 

But it is charged that the people of California are 
not permanently settled — that they are mere va- 
grants, adventurers, gold-hunters, without fixed 
habitations, and will, in a little while, return to 
their old homes. In order to sustain this sneering 
accusation, no proof has been adduced. That some 
of the people of California will return to their 
forrner places of residence, I am free to admit; but 
that a rnajority of them, or even that a large 
minority of them will so return, I do not be- 
believe. Cast your eyes over that country, and 
what will you see? Why, sir, you will see 
cities springing up is if by magic — fanns opening 
and multiplying— multitudes engaged in almost 
every branch of useful industry — and commerce 
crowding all the avenues of trade. Upon inquiring 
into the condition of things, you will learn that a 
mechanic earns from sixteen to twenty-five dollars 
a day ; that a common laborer's wages are more 
than the per diem of a member of Congress; and 
that prnfessional skill and well-directed enterprise 
are rewarded there as they are rewarded nowliere 
else. It is scarcely credible, that men so situated, 
will choose to remove to the older States, where 
the exertions that, in California, yield them thous- 
ands annually, will afford them little more than a 
bare livelihood. It is true that the extraordinary 
.state of things which nov/ prevails in California, 
will not be yiermanent. It must end sooner or 
later; but when it terminates, I do not believe 
that California will be deserted. Her pleasant 
valleys, her delightful climate, and Iter iiicalculable 
commercial advantaoes, will alway.s retain within 
her borders a numerous, active, and thriving popu- 
lation. 



11 



Upon the application of new States forntlmis- 
sion into the Union, we have never required proof 
that their population was permanent. Congress 
has always acted upon the presumption that the 
people living in a State, for tlie most part, intended 
to remain there; and this reasonable supposition 
has not heretofore been disappointed. It is only 
the hardiest and most enterprising of our people 
who go to the new States — it is only such who 
have gone to California. And they are there to 
remain — to build up, along the Pacific, republican 
institutions, and to prove themselves, by the wis- 
dom of their legislation, worthy citizens of this 
widespread, and vk^ider-spreading, Union. 

It is further charged, tliat the Slate government 
of California is not the voluntary work of the 
people, but has been establislied under Executive 
dictation. Fortunately, sir, we know the people 
of California. A little while ago, they were our 
constituents, and we know that Executive dic- 
tation would have as little effect upon them, as 
upon any other portion of our population. Be- 
side this, there is not the slightest proof to sup- 
port the charge of Executive dictation. The 
President did, indeed, dispaich a messenger to 
California, advising the people to form a State 
government, in which, I think, he did wrong. 
That messenger did not, however, reach Califor- 
nia, until after General Riley's proclamation was 
issued. But, say gentlemen, General Riley states, 
in that very proclamation, that the President of 
the United States, and his Secretaries, advised the 
formation of a State government. I do not so 
understand the facts. The last paragraph of the 
proclamation is as follows: 

"Th ' method here indicated, viz., a more perfect political 
or^anizr.tion, is di^eincd the most direct and t-afe that can 
beaiiOi'iled, and one f idly authorized hy law. It is the course 
advised hy the President, and hy ilie Secretnii s of Slate 
and War, of the United States, and is calculated to avoid 
the innumerable evils which mu^t necessarily result from 
any attempt at illegal local legislation." 

What is here meant by " « ??io)'e perfect polilical 
orgnnizalion?" The exi)lanation is to be found in 
the fourth paragraph of the proclamation, which 
is in these words : 

" As Congress has failed to organize a new territorial gov- 
ernment, it becomes our imperative duty to provide for the 
existing wants of the country. This, it is thought, inay be 
best accomplished by putting in full rigor the adniiuistraiion 
of the laws as they now exist, and completing the organiza- 
tion of the civil government ly the election and appointment 
of all officers recognized by law." 

Here we are informed what is the meaning of 
"o more perfect political organiznlio7i." It was 
" the election and appointment of all officers recog- 
nized" by the laws which General Riley supposed 
to exist in California, with a view of giving those 
laws full vigor, by securing their administration. 
The remainder of the paragraph strengthens this 
view. It is as follows: 

"While, at the same time, a convention — in which all 
parts of the territory are represented — shall meet and frame 
a State con.-lilution, or a territorial organization, to be snb- 
initled to the people for their ratification, and then proposed 
to Conzress for its approval. Considerable time will neces- 
sarily elapse before any new gnvernmCHt can he les.ilimaiely 
organized and put in operation ; In the interim, the exi.-tiiig 
government, it its organization be completed, will belound 
»ulficient for all our temporary wants."' 

General Riley here evidently regarded a State 
or territorial organiziilion, by the people of Cali- 
fornia, as of no effect, and illegitimate, until sanc- 
tioned by Congress. He could not, therefore, 



have intended such an organization by the phrase 
" a more perfect political organization," which 
he says was recommended by the President, and 
by the Secretaries of State and of War of the 
United States; for he distinctly asserts that the 
tnore perfect political organization alluded to by 
him was " one fully authorized by law" — by law 
which then existed, and not by law which was to 
be subsequently enacted. How, then, came Gen- 
eral Riley to recommend to the people of Califor- 
nia the formation of a State constitution ? Although 
I have no certain information upon this subject, 
yet I think the evidence before us Justifies me in 
expressing an opinion with regard to it. It ap- 
pears that various movements had, from time to 
time, been set on foot in California, with a view 
of casting off the authority exercised by the chief 
of our military forces in that quarter, as head of 
the government de facto. These movements had 
been successfully suppressed by the American 
commandant. When the failure of the last Con- 
gress to establish a government over California 
was announced in that territory, the public mind 
was much excited, and public attention was again 
directed to the project of organizing a government 
by the people themselves. It can scarcely be 
doubted that this condition of things had its influ- 
ence upon General Riley; and, operated upon by 
the citizens who surrounded him, he issued his 
proclamation, sanctioning, rather than suggesting, 
the propriety of a State organization. If I am 
right in this opinion, the recent movements in 
California were essentially popular. They orig- 
inated with the people, and have been conducted 
by them to their present position. 

J\lr. Chairman, fault has been found with the 
boundaries of California. I confess that I would 
have been better pleased, had the summit of the 
Sierra Nevada been made the eastern boundary of 
the new State: yet I know from peisonal observa- 
tion — from actual travel — that much, if not all, of 
that part of California this side of the Snowy 
Mountain is a miserable desert, upon which no 
one now lives, and u|:ion which, in all probability, 
no one will ever live. It cannot, therefore, be a 
matter of much importance, whether that waste be 
included within California, or be attached to Des- 
eret. As to the enormous area of California, 
about which we have heard so much, I have this 
to say: Much of California is mountain, barren- 
hill, and desert. The valleys alone are considered 
susceptible of cultivation at present ; and after 
having been over the most of California, from San 
Diego to Johnson's Ranch, forty miles north of 
Sutter's, in the Sacramento valley, I have no hesi- 
tation in asserting, that the agricultural resources 
of Missouri are double those of the proposed State. 
Besides this, notwithstanding all the coiTiplaints 
about the great extent of California, it is less than 
half as large as Texas. Now, sir, I was an early, 
constant, and active advocate of the annexation of 
Texas, with her 325,520 square miles of territory, 
and I shall most assuredly not be inconsistent 
enough to oppose the admission of California at this 
ti me "because she has an area of 158,000 square miles. 
Still, sir, as I am anxious to do all in my power to 
quiet the existing excitement, I will vote for an 
alteration of the boundaries of California, if gen- 
tlemen can tliereby be induced to withdraw their 
opposition. 

Mr. Chairman, for the reasons that I have 



12 



now given, I shall vote for the admission of Cali- 
fornia into the Union ns a State. By so actinij, I 
shall carry out, according; to my apprehension, the 
doctrine of non-intervention — the doctrine in snp- 
]iort of which tlie great Democratic party of this 
country were united a few months since — the doc- 
trine whicii was Ijoldly proclaimed by our distin- 
guished standard-liearer in the late Presidential 
contest, and to whom for his recent eloquent vin- 
dication in the Senate of the United States of the 
principles he has heretofore avowed — for his mag- 
nanimous efforts to do justice to the whole nation, 
in opposition to tlie prejudices of a particular 
section, and above all, for his noble and patriotic 
endeavors to secure, preserve, and perpetuate the 
union of these States — 1 now tender him my thanks, 
and tlie thanks of my constituents. Will the 
gentlemen from the North unite with me on tlie 
ground of non-intervention? From those who 
style themselves Free-soilers, I ask nothing and I 
expect nothing ; but from the majority of the 
northern Representatives, I think I have a right to 
look for aid. They say they desire peace and 
quiet to be restored to the country. They surely 
cannot be ignorant of what is passing around us. 
They cannot be blind to the fact, that the Union is 
agitated, and deeply agitated, by theattempts which 
have been made by Congress to restrict slavery to 
its present limits. Never before did so unfortu- 
nate a state of the public mind exist in the country, 
as at present. We have heard, day after day, 
discussions as to the advantages of a dissolution 
of the Union to a portion of its members •, and 
how muchsoever we may deprecate such exhibi- 
tions, they manifest a condition of things most 
alarming to the friends of our Confederacy. 

1 am an Unionist in the most enlarged accepta- 
tion of tile term; and when I reflect upon the prog- 
ress we have made in all that constitutes true na- 
tional greatness; upon theiilessings which our insti- 
tutions have so widely and so universally diffused 
among our population — upon the prosperity which 
is the portion alike of every section of this broad 
land — upon our advancement in all the comforts 
and refinements of life — upon our improvement in 
literature, in the arts and sciences — upon our un- 
heard-of increase in numbers — upon our unexam- 
pled accumulation of strength at home, and upon 
the proud exaltation of our character abroad — I 
cannot believe that our people will ever, except 
under the pressure of the most untoward circum- 
stances, desire any change, and least of all, such 
a change as disunion would bring them. For 
myself, I can say with consf ious truth, that I have 
never attempted to calculate the value of this 
Union — to compute, in dollars and cents, the pecu- 
niary advantages likely to accrue to me or to 
mine, by a disruption of the bonds which hold 
this Confederacy together, and thus to ascertain the 
amount of gain that would result to my State or 
to my section, iiy blotting out the name of my 
country from the list of nations, and by tearini; to 
nieces and tranifiling in the dust, that flag which 
nas led us on from triumph to triumph, until we 
have become the wonder and the admiration of the 
world. No, Mr. Chairman, no. .Such pastimes 
have no attractions for mc. I was born under the 
Union — I trust Iodic underthe Union. Whenever, 
therefore, I see any movement calculated to 
cnd.mgcr the stai)ility of this Government, I can- 
not but feel the liveliest apprehension, and enter- 



tain the deepest solicitude, for the welfare of our 
people. The proposition to ingraft the Wilmot 
proviso upon the bill establishing territorial gov- 
ernments, I believe to be such a movement. No 
constituency in the Union is more conservative 
upon the slavery question than the one which I 
have the honor to represent, yet they would regard 
the passage of the Wilmot proviso as a gross out- 
rage upon their rights. If my section of the 
country feels so deeply upon this subject, is it to 
be wondered at, that the southern Slates feel much 
more deeply .' 

It is not to be disguised, that the discussions 
here, for the last few years, relative to the exclu- 
sion of slavery, by an act of Congress, from our 
recently-acquired territories, have aroused the pas- 
sions of our people, and tended to alienate their 
affections from one another in an alarming degree. 
How much longer shall this evil be tolerated.' 
How much further shall it progress? Shall it 
go on until the irritation becomes incurable ? 
Shall it go on until section is arrayed ag-ainst sec- 
tion, in all the bitterness of civil strife? Shall 
it go on until the arm of military power is brought 
in to hold together the distant parts of this Con- 
federacy ? It does appear to me, that if patriotism 
be not dead in this hall — that if our professed de- 
votion to this Union be not an empty boast — that 
we will settle the differences which divide us, be- 
fore the present session of Congress is permitted 
to close. We can settle them upon the principle 
of non-intervention. Let us admit California as 
a State, but let us also organize a territorial gov- 
ernment for the residue of our Mexican territory, 
without the clause prohibiting slavery. Such aa 
adjustment, I am aware, will not satisfy the e.x- 
tremists of any section; but if we wish to pacify 
the country, we must avoid all extremes; we must 
cultivate a spirit of concession and compromise in 
this and the other house of Congress. If we will 
but do this — if we will but banish from our midst 
that sectional and party-rancor, which, I fear, some- 
times too much prevails among us — if we will but 
call up that spirit, which animated the good and 
great men who formed this wisest and best of gov- 
ernments — if we will but forget ourselves a little 
while, in the effort to serve our country — all will 
yet be well. That storm of sectional strife which 
now rages around us, will be rpiieted; the bright 
sunshine of brotherly love will again break in 
upon us, and the Union of these States will be but 
emblematical of that union of kind regard and 
sympathy, which should prevail among the cit- 
izens of this greatest of Republics. 

Mr. Chairman, our constituents expect us to 
settle the questions which now so fiercely agitate 
the public mind. They are demanding their set- 
tlement at our hands. They are calling upon us 
in the name of our common country, in the name 
of our common hopes, in the name of all that is 
nio.=;t glorious in the recollections of the past, and 
brightest in the anticipations of the future, to set- 
tle these questions that are so fraught with conse- 
quences the most fearful — so big with dangers the 
most alarming. If wc heed this voice, we shall 
deserve the gratitude of the American people. If 
we heed it not, we shall merit their CDnilemnation. 
Entertaining these sentiments, I have viewed with 
pain — nay, sir, with jirofound regret — the effort of 
the present Executive to keep the question of 
slavery in the Territories of New Mexico and 



13 



Deseret still open, and undetermined. I trust that 
a majority of this House will not adopt a policy 
so unfortunate— a policy which must keep up the 
present excitement — an excitement, which if not 
quieted, may lead us, God only knows where. If 
gentlemen from the North — for they must settle 
the question — cannot stand on the ground of non- 
intervention, let them bring forward their plan of 
adjustment. For one, I stand here ready, willing, 
nay, eager, to vote for almost any proposition 



which gives a fair and reasonable promise of 
pacifying our people; and if, by any eflbrts of 
mine, I shall contribute in the smallest degree, to a 
satisfactory adjustment of our present difficulties, 
I shall believe that I have rendered the State some 
service. If all my efforts shall prove unavailing, 
to accomplish this end, I shall still have the con- 
solation of knowing that I have endeavored to 
discharge my duty to my country, honestly and 
faithfully, in this, the darkest hour of her peril. 



W46 






■^u .^' ^: 



.^v" 



•^' 








v-^' 




*v/» 






^^^'^'i 







o 


'/<i^ 


o 


* 


'^ 




1 


'^ 


'c. 


'^^o. 


Y: 


^a>S 


^'% 



v-, 



.-?.' 









s>. ^.«o' A^ 








Mrs;.- ^-^ 
























.^'-^-^ 












•0^ 












CV « BOOKBINDINC. 




















..^^ '^ 



